Congresswoman Clarifies Who Is Entitled to Impose Values on Others

The recent flap over the Obama Administration’s edict that all employers must provide birth control, including abortifacients, as part of heath insurance benefits for employees has given us a “teaching moment,” says representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.).

“We have established the fundamental principle that employers may not force their views on employees by refusing to cover the costs of birth control measures,” Wasserman-Schultz crowed. “The days of employer oppression of employees are over. The government has stepped in to defend the working class.”

The Congresswoman dismissed complaints that the Obama Administration’s move wrongfully violates individuals’ rights to act in accord with their own consciences. “We had an election in 2008,” she pointed out. “Obama won that election. He has a mandate from voters that overrides the supposed individual right to freedom of conscience. This is what democracy is all about.”

“In contrast, employers have no mandate to decide what they will or won’t pay for if elected authorities say otherwise,” she continued. “Obligations to invisible deities or claims of purported ‘inalienable rights’ cannot be used to set aside one’s responsibility to obey the laws laid down by our President.”

In related news, a quartet of Senate Democrats denounced a Republican initiative aimed at protecting the “right of conscience” to not be forced to participate in a government program that they believe to be morally wrong. “We can’t have people deciding for themselves whether they ought to be required to participate in funding someone else’s birth control or abortion rights,” declared California Senator Barbara Boxer. “This would put anarchic individualism ahead of social welfare. It would set the country back 200 years.”

Ironically, it was a little over 200 years ago that the First Amendment to the Constitution barred the government from interfering with an individual’s right of conscience.

Capitol Police Arrest Pro-Life Demonstrators Near White House

Six pro-life demonstrators were arrested for holding a prayer vigil on the sidewalk outside the White House earlier this week. All were released after paying a ransom of $100 apiece.

One of the arrestees, Fr. Denis Wilde, the Associate Director of Priests for Life, pointed out the disparities between how his small protest was handled when compared to the police response to the Occupy Wall Street protest. “Occupy Wall Street protesters have been occupying federal property for months, but when we kneel in prayer, the police are called in and we are arrested,” Father Wilde complained.

Spokesman for the Capitol Police, Amir Kalid, maintained that “there is no animus against these people. We don’t hate Catholics. But let me point out that they have their own places of worship they can use to pray. They have no inherent right to pray on the sidewalks. The sidewalks are public places and there is a separation of church and state in this country. Keeping them clear of unwarranted activities is our duty.”

“As far as any claimed disparities between these and other protesters goes, officers were merely following orders,” Kalid added. “We can only speculate as to the reasons why some are allowed and others are not.”

Former President Jimmy Carter attempted to answer Kalid’s speculation, by pointing out that “Catholics are clearly a minority, while Occupy Wall Street represents 99% of the population. Perhaps this is a sufficient explanation for how Capitol Police are instructed to handle these different groups.”

Obama Recovery Plan a Great Success, Says Biden

Vice-President Joe Biden gives President Obama high grades when it comes to his handling of the economy. As he sees it, the bailouts and stimulus spending have been a “great success.”

“Statistical nerds are saying that the economy has lost construction and manufacturing jobs since the President’s program was adopted, but I don’t know any of these people,” Biden said. “Everybody I know has a job. Why should I believe the numbers the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) trolls are reporting?”

Biden admitted that “occasionally I’m approached by somebody who says he’s unemployed and would like some help. But how do I know it’s not just some sort of hustle? Voters have got to immunize themselves against GOP propaganda. The key question they should ask themselves is whether they are better off than they were four years ago. Once they focus on that there’s no doubt in my mind that they will reelect the President.”

Battle over School Lunches Shaping up

The government’s effort to force feed America’s youth with nutritionally approved food raised its ugly head in a North Carolina pre-school this past week. The issue gained notoriety when a mother complained that school officials declared the sack-lunch of a turkey sandwich, fruit, chips, and apple juice she had prepared for her daughter was substandard and gave the child a school meal composed of chicken nuggets, milk, and a vegetable. In the end, the girl ate only the chicken nuggets.

The principal of West Hoke Elementary, Jackie Samuels, defended the program as “a crucial step toward ensuring that all children are properly fed. The lunches parents send vary considerably in their nutritional content. Some are down right awful. It is apparent that too many parents are either ignorant of or indifferent to their child’s nutritional needs. The question is whether we are going to tolerate this ignorance and indifference or take measures to insert expert guidance into the process.”

The inspection of students’ bagged lunches was characterized as a “more moderate intervention than authorized by law. We are within our rights to forbid lunches brought from home,” Samuels asserted. “If all food consumed at school were prepared by the school a more balanced and standardized nutritional offering could be put in front of every child. No child would be left to the mercy of the possibly ill-informed efforts of a parent.”

Parents who might be dissatisfied with the program were reminded that “this is a publicly funded school. As such, it will be governed by state standards. Those who can’t abide these standards are free to send there children elsewhere or home-school them if they are so inclined.”

Whether Obamacare Is a Tax Depends on Venue Aide Says

A key argument of the Obama Administration’s legal defense of the President’s signature health care legislation was called into question by acting White House budget director Jeff Zients’ testimony before the House Budget Committee. Zients was arguing that the penalty assessed by Obamacare on a person who fails to purchase insurance is NOT a tax.

On the other hand, Obama’s lawyers have been arguing that the penalty IS a tax. This argument is necessitated in order for the Obamacare law to appear to be Constitutional. While Congress lacks the authority to require a person to purchase a product—heath insurance being such an item—it does have the authority to impose a tax.

Zients attempted to finesse the issue by contending that offering contradictory arguments in different venues is okay. “Look, from the legal perspective it is imperative that the penalty be classified as a tax,” Zients told Representative Scott Garrett (R-NJ). “So, that’s what the lawyers say it is. But from a political perspective it is important that the President not be perceived as reneging on his promise not to raise taxes on those making under $250,000 a year. So, that’s why I’m telling you it is not a tax.”

Congresswoman Vows to Silence Key Republicans If Dems Take Back Majority

Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called Republicans John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Eric Cantor (R-Va) “demons,” and vowed that “once I am at the head of the Financial Services Committee these men will never be seen or heard from again.”

While chairing a Congressional committee is a powerful position with many perks and privileges, it has yet to authorize the complete silencing of political opponents. Perhaps this is about to change because as Ms. Waters argues, “these men are out to destroy President Obama. The good of the country demands that we Democrats not shy away from the stern measures needed to protect his mission to transform America.”

DOJ Refuses to Enforce Voter Registration Act

The Obama Administration Department of Justice is refusing to carry out provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requiring that the names of voters known to be deceased be purged from registration rolls. The rationale for this failure to execute the laws of this country was explained by a DOJ attorney: “removing dead people from the rolls doesn’t increase turnout. It stops people from voting.”

“We’d rather err on the side of inclusiveness,” explained Attorney General Eric Holder. “How do we know for sure a person is dead? I mean, unless I’ve seen the body how can I rule out the possibility that the voter’s so-called death might be a mere clerical error? We can’t take the chance that a person be disenfranchised by a clerical error. This would be a monstrous injustice. I’d rather risk a 1,000 bogus ballots than deny one person his human right to cast a vote for who will rule over him. This human right is fundamental to our democracy.”